Look for the "Escape Hatch" W/SCOTUS

[Ann H]

First of all, SCOTUS must rule. They might not throw out the subsidies at all.

After they rule, I'm thinking America will demand some sort of transition.

My heart goes out to agents who would feel a large impact on their book of business if this rug is yanked out. It's not the first time the rug has been yanked! I've been designing my own business model to try to put eggs in a lot of baskets for just this reason. It's not just the potential loss of subsidies that could cause a major disruption - there are a lot of rugs to yank! And my own business model would certainly feel the earthquake. I write a lot of small group, which is in the same risk pool with IFP. Even large group would be impacted greatly by loss of subsidies in IFP. And, don't forget that the large group penalty would be toothless if there were no subsidies to trigger the penalty.

it's a major rug yanker, that's for sure.

 

[taterpeeler]

A


I sell Medicare plans because Medicare exists.

Rick

I sell Obamacare because it exists..... i like my money and you like yours... you live in california i live in texas.... I'm poor, you must be rich, you own a plane... long live medicare

 

[houcoogster]

Hatch didn't offer details on what his proposed short-term fix would entail.

I wonder if he sent a copy to SCOTUS??

In an attempt to say don't worry we've got you covered.....go ahead and nix em.

It would need to pass first if its to have any influence with the court which I doubt it will...... even if it passes.

I've always liked Hatch he's probably the most level headed guy up there and he knows if they do get nixed it will be a Republican problem to deal with.

 

[AllenChicago]

I wonder if he sent a copy to SCOTUS??

I've always liked Hatch he's probably the most level headed guy up there and he knows if they do get nixed it will be a Republican problem to deal with.

Hatch's proposal might be allowed to join the growing number of Amicus briefs in this case.
Ref: 14-1114
ac

 

[unic.consulting]

I wonder if he sent a copy to SCOTUS??

In an attempt to say don't worry we've got you covered.....go ahead and nix em.

It would need to pass first if its to have any influence with the court which I doubt it will...... even if it passes.

I've always liked Hatch he's probably the most level headed guy up there and he knows if they do get nixed it will be a Republican problem to deal with.

He also knows it will be his own problem since he has his name on one of the briefs in favor of gutting the law.

 

[djs]

It won't be 2016. My bet is on 2017. 6 months isn't long enough to get 36 exchanges implemented.

This isn't for SCOTUS to sort out. They will rule whether subsidies from federal exchanges are legal or not. If not, it will then fall upon congress and a President with a Pen to fix it.

It really isn't that hard, except politics (on both sides) will get in the way, big time.

Dan

 

[kgmom219]

This is the best overview I've seen..

But though "the statute is sloppy," Ms Gluck writes, "I think its meaning is plain." This, in the end, is what King v Burwell comes down to: the Supreme Court will decide whether to let millions of Americans pay the price for their legislators' shoddy draftsmanship.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/02/obamacare-and-supreme-court

 

[GreenSky]

Just as "it's a tax, not a penalty" despite what the LAW said, the supremes will not change the subsidy.

It's part of the Constitution. The court makes laws, they don't interpret. Or something like that. I could be confused.

Rick

 

[AllenChicago]

This is the best overview I've seen..

But though "the statute is sloppy," Ms Gluck writes, "I think its meaning is plain." This, in the end, is what King v Burwell comes down to: the Supreme Court will decide whether to let millions of Americans pay the price for their legislators' shoddy draftsmanship.

Obamacare and the Supreme Court: Four words could bring the law down | The Economist

Can the Supreme Court direct Congress to re-write the "shoddily" drafted law and for the Treasury to keep subsidies flowing, until the re-write and passage is complete?

Due to large egos, I can't see SCOTUS saying, "The intent is clear. There's no action needed on our part... Everybody move along, nothing more to see here!"

 

[Ann H]

Well, I believe the way it is SUPPOSED to work is:

* Congress makes a law (hopefully after reading it)

* Governmental departments (like HHS, DOL, IRS, etc.) carry out that law, and make rulings & regs to interpret the administration of the law

* Courts interpret that law when there is a contention

* SCOTUS is the final interpreter of the law

* Congress must re-write the law (or amend it, or give it a "fix") if the interpretation isn't what they wanted.

* The President can veto that Congressional Bill if he wants to. He can also instruct his departments (like HHS, IRS, etc.) to manipulate their own "fix", and see if that flies. After all, he has a pen.

Unfortunately, things don't always work out that way! The Republicans control Congress, and SCOTUS knows that. The President has a magic pen. So, how this will come out in the long-run is anyone's guess.

I'd love to guess all the ways this could land. But if SCOTUS doesn't throw out the subsidies in the FFM, then all my "guessing" is for naught.